Personal Health Records - An Overview

4,266 views

Published on

An overview presentation of Personal Health Record structure, functionality and benchmarking

Published in: Health & Medicine, Business
0 Comments
5 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
4,266
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
17
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
138
Comments
0
Likes
5
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Personal Health Records - An Overview

  1. 1. Personal Health Records Connecting the Healthcare Experience
  2. 2. Roadmap <ul><li>What is a Personal Health Record (PHR) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Definition, Components, & Goals </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Terminology </li></ul><ul><li>Market </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Market Size & Benchmarks </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Providence </li></ul><ul><li>Future Directions </li></ul>
  3. 3. What is a PHR?
  4. 4. Functional Components
  5. 5. Patient Applications <ul><li>More than just static repositories for patient data </li></ul><ul><li>Combine data, knowledge, and software tools </li></ul><ul><li>Help patients to become active participants in their own care </li></ul>
  6. 6. PHR Goals
  7. 7. Terminology <ul><li>Stand Alone – Limited to patient-entered and maintained information </li></ul><ul><li>Tethered PHR – Allows patients to view information from other applications (e.g. Institutional EMR) </li></ul><ul><li>Interoperable PHR – Accessible to and through multiple systems </li></ul><ul><li>Bi-directional PHR – Two-way communication between EMR and PHR </li></ul>
  8. 8. Repository vs. PHR
  9. 9. Adoption Potential <ul><li>75% of consumers want access online </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Medical records </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Test results </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Appointment scheduling </li></ul></ul><ul><li>1 in 4 willing to pay extra </li></ul><ul><li>60% would use a PHR if available </li></ul>
  10. 10. Cross-Industry Comparison <ul><li>Online banking </li></ul><ul><ul><li>27% growth rate in 2005 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>72 million households (76%) by 2011 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>85% of “Gen Y” will bank online </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Similarities and Differences </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Technical - security, privacy, sharing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Information complexity and need for interpretation </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. Current Utilization <ul><li>25% of Americans have PHR access </li></ul><ul><li>Currently 2-3% actual overall utilization </li></ul><ul><li>Barriers to adoption: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Difficulty finding, using or understanding PHR’s </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of “Value” content – beyond data storage </li></ul></ul>
  12. 12. Current Utilization <ul><li>Higher adoption rates in specific systems </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lower adoption in repository-only systems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Function layers drive utilization </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ease of access and use are key drivers </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. Aetna <ul><li>Using ActiveHealth </li></ul><ul><li>Partnered with HealthVault </li></ul><ul><li>Installed in mid-2007 </li></ul><ul><li>7% PHR adoption April 2009 (18 mo) </li></ul>
  14. 14. SSM Healthcare of Wisconsin <ul><li>Using Epic MyChart </li></ul><ul><li>650 providers </li></ul><ul><li>1.1 million EMPI records </li></ul><ul><li>0  30,000 active users after 18 months </li></ul><ul><li>30% growth during last 6 months </li></ul>
  15. 15. Kaiser <ul><li>Using Epic’s MyChart </li></ul><ul><li>34% PHR adoption (3M users and 8.3M members) within 3 years </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lab results viewed 150K  10M+ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Clinician messaging 74K  3.5M+ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Patient portal repeat users 20%  60% </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. Providence PHR Registration <ul><li>200,000 members </li></ul><ul><li>3,000 PHR registrants </li></ul><ul><li>1.5% adoption </li></ul>
  17. 17. Providence PHR Utilization Utilization data is for the last 2 years of WebMD implementation
  18. 18. Functional Components
  19. 19. Current Providence PHR <ul><li>Claims based data source </li></ul><ul><li>On-site data repository </li></ul><ul><li>One-way data flow </li></ul><ul><li>Some targeting possible </li></ul>PHR Applications Application Programming Interface PHR Data Repository AdministrativeData Source Clinical Data Source Patient Entered Data Security Protocol Security Protocol
  20. 20. PHR and Connect Rx Hub SureScripts Non-Providence Providers PHR Patient Providence HIE Cerner Lab Star Radiology HCS IS Centricity Horizon Clinicals 3 rd Party Repository Admin Server Flowcast Pathways Inpt Sched
  21. 21. Shift Away From Claims? <ul><li>“ Sharing billing data with patients is unreliable for clinical history, and it was a mistake to do that” </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>- Dr. John Halamka, CIO Beth Israel Deaconess </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>April 2009 </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  22. 22. Shift Away From Claims? <ul><li>Google now working with National Library of Medicine to codify free text clinical terms </li></ul>
  23. 23. Claims Data Value
  24. 24. Summary <ul><li>PHR’s are a fundamental means of providing value driven healthcare </li></ul><ul><li>We are currently falling behind benchmarks in PHR application and adoption rates </li></ul><ul><li>Developing a bidirectional, integrated PHR puts Providence at the front of Healthcare IT </li></ul>
  25. 25. Questions?

×